The UDBHR has accepted the concept of justice as a global bioethical principle in Article 10 (centred on equality, justice and equity) which is formulated as follows (Ten Have and Patrão Neves 2021b): “The fundamental equality of all human beings in dignity and rights is to be respected so that they are treated justly and equitably” (UNESCO 2006). The present discussion focuses on the idea that people “are to be treated justly.” Justice here means equal and fair treatment as well as the fair distribution of advantages and disadvantages (UNESCO 2008; Ten Have and Patrão Neves 2021b). Within the context of the UDBHR, justice is also considered to be derived from human dignity as its foundation (art. 3; UNESCO, 2006). The application of individual justice is to recognize and respect the human dignity of the person (D’Empaire 2009).

In the present subsection, the distribution of burdens related to COVID-19’s stay-at-home order is briefly examined. A variety of aspects of the stay-at-home order and injustice could be discussed, such as the prohibition that informal workers may not work (Fisher, et al. 2022), but the health aspects will be discussed here.

One might think that the stay-at-home order is eminently democratic: after all, everyone, rich and poor, young and old, must stay at home. Yet it is not that simple. The stay-at-home order may be unfair, because the burden of staying at home may be experienced disproportionately by poorer individuals and groups (Fisher, et al. 2022). There is the reality of unequal conditions at home (Yamin 2021; Ten Have 2022). Forced confinement can disproportionately harm defenceless communities (Ten Have 2022). Circumstances at the homes of citizens can differ drastically so that some residents may suffer more than others. For most persons, it is difficult to stay inside the house for long periods, but this measure can place a much greater burden on people in the lower socio-economic strata than on those who enjoy a higher economic status (Kell, et al. 2022)

People who are wealthy will have access to comfortable accommodation and the chances are high that they will have spaces to use such as large gardens, gyms, and swimming pools. Many citizens live on farms or plots. These people can drink coffee on their deck every day in their pyjamas without any significant impact on their lives or daily existence (Kraaijeveld 2021). Wealthy people may be able to live comfortably and independently for longer periods because they can have all kinds of goods and food delivered to their home and will have greater access to online recreation. That is why an investigation indicated that richer people encountered fewer problems with in-home confinement and the restriction of their rights than poorer ones (Bohler-Muller, et al. 2020). However, it should also be mentioned that more prosperous people who live in complexes or estates also do not always have access to outside spaces (Smart and Broadbent 2020).

Individuals and families who are not so well off find themselves in smaller and sometimes very small spaces such as single rooms or have to share accommodation with others (Yamin 2021). In some small shacks ten persons or more may be residing. Others may live in apartment units on the seventh floor. Most of these people’s opportunities for fresh air and movement are extremely limited. In many cases, when nature calls, people have to leave home due to the lack of adequate facilities within the house, it necessitates the individual to relieve themselves outdoors within the view of the community (Smart and Broadbent 2020).

Because of limited space, the chances are greater that poorer and other vulnerable people’s physical health can be harmed. “No jogging. No dog walking. Stay inside” was the definite message from the government. The restriction on exercise had the potential to affect people’s physical health. The absence of physical activity for a period of three weeks can potentially result in various adverse effects, particularly among older individuals and those with existing health conditions (Ten Have 2022). These effects may include muscle loss, damage to the neuromuscular junction, denervation of muscle fibers, insulin resistance, diminished aerobic capacity, weight gain, and the presence of low-grade systemic inflammation. Exercise also has a protective function against various health conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity and many others (Adebiyi, et al. 2021). It is especially important for older vulnerable people in order for them to maintain or improve their health.

There is a very high risk for poorer people with limited space who already struggle with psychological and psychiatric problems (depression, anxiety disorders) that their conditions may worsen due to the stay-at-home order (Adebiyi, et al. 2021; Ten Have 2022). Studies made in the United States and Italy point out that citizens’ psychological and psychiatric problems have drastically worsened during confinement (Kraaijeveld 2021). The stay-at-home order in South-Africa was also the cause of psychological and psychiatric illnesses in many citizens and this was proportionally greater among the poorer incarcerated citizens according to one study (Fisher, et al. 2022). It is known that people started to suffer from “lockdown fatigue” early on. Tentative evidence based on Google Trends suggests that, during the enforced lockdown, searches for the words “bored,” “worried,” and “lonely” increased drastically (Brodeur, et al. 2020). In contrast, exercise (as the simple freedom to take a walk around the block) can provide great relief for psychological and psychiatric conditions. People tend to ignore the value of exercise during physical and mental conditions. Physical activity can have particular value for improving physical and psychological conditions (Smart and Broadbent 2020). The result of being confined to the house is that people behave in a more and more sedentary manner. They sit in front of the television, mobile phone and computer for hours. This can lead to a decrease in visual health and a variety of other health conditions (Adebiyi, et al. 2021).

Domestic violence, rape, and child abuse are serious social and health problems in South Africa. Domestic violence means that men, women, and children are physically and psychologically assaulted, with the result that their health is drastically damaged in many cases. The danger of violence at home can begin or increase during forced confinement and, due to the limited space at their disposal, it affected the poorer population disproportionately when compared with wealthier communities where individuals enjoy larger spaces; although, importantly, this fact did not exclude the wealthier communities from the violence (Heywood 2020; Ten Have 2022). In times of major disasters and epidemics, domestic violence has been shown to increase. People literally have nowhere to go and frustrations build up which can lead to violence (Smart and Broadbent 2020). The reality is that the measure of not being allowed to leave the house forced victims of domestic violence to stay with their partner or parents and prevented them from escaping or seeking help. During the stay-at-home order, the government’s domestic violence centre received more than 120,000 calls, which is roughly double the normal number (Adebiyi, et al. 2021; Kell, et al. 2022; Human Rights Watch 2020; Fisher, et al. 2022).

In developing nations, individuals who lack employment or engage in informal and irregular work face a lack of income, support, and food if they are forced to stay at home (Ten Have 2022). A study by Mbatha, et al. (2021, 313) concludes,

This created some challenges for the accessibility of food, as some of the citizens lost their jobs and incomes as they were mandated to stay at home. The overall aspect of the findings reveals that food security in South Africa is being threatened by the sale of unsafe food by the informal sector that mostly supplies the poor. (see also Abrahams, et al. 2022).

It is widely acknowledged that insufficient access to an adequate food supply can greatly compromise individual health. Throughout the course of history, the connection between food and its influence on health has been intricately entwined, capable of either promoting well-being or causing harm (Ten Have 2019).

Injustice, in my opinion, is also demonstrated in existing health programmes (Ten Have 2022). In March and April 2020 alone, the number of AIDS tests dropped by 57 per cent due to the fact that people had to stay in their homes. Because many people were wary of leaving their homes out of fear, it is estimated that the interruption of testing and the availability of chronic medicines led to increased death due to HIV and tuberculosis by 10 to 20 per cent over the subsequent five years. This means that 63,000 more people than usual will die of tuberculosis in the foreseeable period (Smart, et al. 2020).

In summary, preliminary research seems to suggest that the stay-at-home order may have disadvantaged poorer people more than wealthier ones. This directive likely led to large poorer families being forced to live longer in smaller housing, resulting in physical and psychological problems, domestic violence, shortage of healthy food, and an increase in the non-treatment of potential AIDS/HIV and tuberculosis patients. The aim of this study is to assess the stay-at-home order against the global principles of the UDBHR. In light of the aforementioned information, it appears that particularly vulnerable individuals may not have received equal treatment according to the understanding of Article 10. Hence, it is possible to cautiously and tentatively argue that there is reason to question the fulfilment of justice, specifically in terms of equal and fair treatment, as well as the equitable distribution of advantages and disadvantages

The question emerges, which among these two principles carries the greatest weight? The preference of one principle over another is not a simple matter. This weighing process is not an exact science: it sometimes involves an extremely complex process and different information can make the decision weigh in any direction (UNESCO 2008). Article 26 of the UDBHR states that

This Declaration is to be understood as a whole and the principles are to be understood as complementary and interrelated. Each principle is to be considered in the context of the other principles, as appropriate and relevant in the circumstances.

Given this, Kraaijeveld (2021) offers the following heuristic key within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic:

An important principle here is that of the least restrictive means, which holds that public health measures should interfere with the autonomous freedom of individuals to the least possible or necessary extent.

In light of the current difference of opinion on whether the stay-at-home-order curbed the spread of COVID-19 and the heightened sense of belief that the advancement of justice is being questioned, my current view is that justice should weigh heavier than the severe restriction of human freedom. However, this is not the final word on this matter and calls for further and in-depth study.